Recent polls including a run of 23 with nationalists in the lead have had their supporters and SNP Politicians claiming Leave UK is now in the majority and the settled will of the Scottish people. All they need is a #Scexit vote soon and they will win. Utter nonsense.
There are a number of (some complex) charts in this post that show the lie to their claim. My recent Blog on polling in much greater detail is here https://stevensayers.wordpress.com/2021/03/11/the-trend-is-nigh/ Pre selection of those polled via propensity to vote is one particular issue.
Note the media concentrates on the headline percentage ‘excluding’ undecideds, this is disingenuous as the bulk of these uncertain people (DK’s) do vote when it comes to a real vote, they tend, as happened in 2014, to gravitate towards the status quo rather than the risky option in a binary choice. In the 19 pre referendum polls in September 2014 80% of the DK’s reverted to the status quo and voted to remain in our UK.
I like the first chart below (with polling from 2011) which gifts Leave UK ALL the undecideds, which of course would NEVER happen.
The internal SNP target of 60% in the polls for a 12 month period is pie in the sky. Its why they are probably pretty unhappy at HQ and why Sturgeon has stated that she will only hold a #Scexit vote if it is via a UK sanctioned Section 30.
I do not want and I don’t think we need another divisive #Scexit vote, but, this constant harping about the constitution is tiresome, most Nats seem, frighteningly, economically clueless and factually bereft (or they lie).
Perhaps giving them another go and getting their second fail might shut them up? Without going into the detail of an Edinburgh Agreement and or the issues of win and turnout hurdles, or the confirmatory vote options, I think democracy in Scotland would prevail and it would be the final nail in their #Scexit coffin.
If in Holyrood 2021 the SNP win 51% of the vote, based on a clear cut manifesto that is specifically #Scexit based, that elusive second vote being their primary/key policy and objective, then let’s go for it! Crush it for a real pre agreed generation this time.
Note my paragraph from the last polling update 13/7/20, It’s as I said, Brexit is done and Covid reality is sinking in, “For those of a nervous disposition, by then Brexit will be history and the Scottish Covid failings regarding testing and care homes will have been fully exposed”.
Steve 13/7/20 – Updated 26/4/21
#SNPOut
Full poll list below. Note not all links resolve to original source data, some pollsters delete or relocate tables after time passes. The two Hanbury Strategy polls excluded DK”s so their results have been adjusted to include them based on actual DK statistics from the major pollsters. Also not the Wikipedia page EXCLUDES polls carried out on behalf of Scotland In Union as they use the Leave Remain UK question (only nationalists thinks this is an issue).
Or, why polling shows us our nationalist friends haven’t a hope in hell of winning a second RemainUK/LeaveUK referendumeven if by some chance they wangle one.
As we move into another Holyrood election season, one that could yet see another parliament session with a minority secessionist ‘government’ in control – if successful they’ll have been in power for 19 years by 2026 – it’s worth taking a closer look at the current public appetite for the single blinkered issue that dominates their thinking, focus and interactions with our UK., #Scexit. That appetite is regularly measured by professional polling companies, 99% of whom are members of the British Polling Council (BPC), who’s president is Professor Sir John Curtice from The University of Strathclyde.
We’ve just passed an 8 month period in Scottish #Scexit politics, during which It seems all there is in Scottish politics now Brexit is finally done (as a RemainEU voter who accepted democracy I just wish we can now all move on), is Scexit & Salmond. During this period the BPC polls have shown a lead for LeaveUK 23 times consecutively. You’ll probably have heard about it, as it now seemed the polls really mattered when nationalists are in the lead, well, let’s humour them a bit, it’s the only decent run they’ve ever had or are likely to have.
Since I took a keen and detailed interest in the polls (after the referendum was announced), there have been 253 since November 2011 and 143 polls since the referendum in 2014. In the post referendum polls, LeaveUK has led 38 times, their longest run before their recent run of 23 was 3. It doesn’t seem coincidental to me that the run coincided with two key issues: a combined last ditch attempt by the SNP and remainers to attempt to stop Brexit, which failed, and an anti Boris led Tory government elected in December 2019 kickback. We have now left the EU, we left at the end of January 2021, and it’s shortly thereafter (and prior to Salmond and Sturgeon appearing at the Inquiry) that the mildly positive trend for LeaveUK reversed, the last 6 polls showing RemainUK in the lead again. As well as Brexit receding as an issue now the deed is done, it’s also quite possible the UK’s excellent Vaccine handling investment and rollout have also positively impacted on peoples perceptions, positive towards our UK that is.
In reality is there’s no convincing lead for LeaveUK, no majority, no ‘settled will,’ there never has been and most likely there never will be. Even when LeaveUK are gifted ALL of those don’t know/undecided poll votes, they never get anywhere near their (The SNP’s never contested) internal target of achieving 60% in the polls for a 12 month period. When we exclude DK’s (all polls show results for LeaveUK, RemainUK and Don’t Knows/Undecideds/Wont Vote – DK’s for short) LeaveUK has never achieved 60% for one poll, never mind one year, and that’s in 6.5 years of polls. In the 9 months to 22/2/21 (23 polls) the average for LeaveUK was 54% excluding DK’s, with only one poll at 59%. This period from 5/6/20 was the zenith for LeaveUK, the start of their 23 poll lead sequence. Since the start of that period there has now been 29 polls and LeaveUK’s average is 53%, starting at 52% and ending now at 49%. Immediately after the referendum in 2014, the first poll showed LeaveUK at 52%, with their current polling at 49% it’s clear there is no significant change, remember, DK’s are ignored, so the reality would be that percentage would drop in a real vote..
Individual polls by themselves mean nothing, yes they are of interest, but not as illuminating as the trend over time of multiple polls from a number of polling companies. Abstracting trends of individual pollsters is also interesting, we will look at one of these abstractions shortly as it’s current and is carried out regularly. When you look at the wider trend and consider the previous three paragraphs, it’s evident to those with logic that the SNP led LeaveUK have a huge battle ahead of them this coming Holyrood election. They and their nationalist supporters desperately want a referendum, yet there is no perceived majority for and indeed no moral mandate for such a referendum. The SNP have to win in May to keep their Scexit flame alive and they also have to promise their support a referendum is coming, thats a cleft stick as the public are tired of the hatred and division their obsession causes. The only way they can get anything approaching a moral mandate is to campaign on a Scexit manifesto. This from a recent tweet of mine: “There’s no SNP #Scexit mandate now. The only way of getting a publicly accepted mandate, is by getting 51%+ of #HR21 votes based on a manifesto with Scexit as its primary promise. Nothing else cuts it & it isn’t going 2 happen, Scexit won’t be their primary manifesto commitment.” So not only are the polls against them but it’s unlikely they will go all out in the campaign for a second referendum, the combination of lack of commitment and fading polling will lead, in my view, to further falls in support for ‘independence”a positive word bastardised by Scottish nationalists.
The interesting fact about polls is that due to weighting aspects (polling technical data handling) I believe they are even worse for LeaveUK. So, those of you not interested in detail and numbers may well want to stop reading now, because this is going to get somewhat detailed, and as is evident from the preceding paragraphs, LeaveUK is on a hiding to nothing anyway.
Polls are weighted, this from Anthony Wells from YouGov: “Weighting by Demographics As we’ve seen from the sampling article, no sampling technique is perfect: quasi-random sampling by definition has some random variation in it and even YouGov, who know the demographics of all the people they invite to a poll, can’t be certain they will all respond at the same rate. If an achieved sample doesn’t match the known demographics of Great Britain (Scotland) then pollsters deal with it through weighting. https://ukpollingreport.co.uk/faq-weighting” This from respected Times journalist Kenny Farquharson: “FWIW, having commissioned and reported polls for almost 30 years my conclusion is this: it is much more useful to have the naked snapshot of public opinion, unweighted for turnout. Only when you are close to polling day does it become relevant to bring turnout into the picture‘. https://twitter.com/KennyFarq/status/1368471320359485440?s=20 Weighting really is more complex and difficult than YouGov would have you believe, especially in relation to Scexit polling which has a number of unique aspects.
When I first looked at data from polls around and after the referendum (polling companies publish a high level of detail as well as the headline results used by them and those who commission them) only survation weighted results by the ‘likelihood to vote’. Most other pollsters in polls pre & after the referendum didn’t use turnout weighting. Even Mark Diffley when working at Ipsos Mori (he’s now with SNP backed Angus Robertson’s ‘Progress Scotland’) didn’t use it, Survation was followed by others later who now all use it. The reduction in people questioned varies from 10% – 20%, this in my opinion has to increase the MOE (margin of error, normally +/-5%) and reduce DK%’s significantly. This means if the poll asks 1020 people to take part, they prune down the number asked the actual LeaveUK/RemainUK question by somewhere between 100 and 200 people. This turnout pruning is via a question asking how likely they are to vote on a scale of zero to ten, they then exclude those who selected (normally) 8 or less where 10 was most likely/definite to vote. It seems to me when it’s a simple binary question, excluding those from 1 – 8 is going to reduce the number of DK’s in the final result. These DK’s are the very people who decide a referendums outcome, they either vote one way or the other when push comes to shove. In 2014 those DK’s gravitated hugely towards RemainUK when people were actually faced with the vote. The same will happen again, lack of information and poor forecast detail from the SNP will ensure it. In the 3 polls on the day prior to the referendum, the average results were: LeaveUK 44%, RemainUK 49% and DK 7%, you know the result, LeaveUK picked up only 1% of those DK’s, RemainUK picked up 6%, (86%) of the undecided vote to produce the 55.3%/44.7% RemainUK result. Comparing that to the latest 3 polls, LeaveUK 44%, RemainUK 46% and DK 10%, on a similar pattern (which is highly likely) to 2014, the result tomorrow would be 54.5%/45.5% RemainUK, absolutely no significant change. Bear in mind this is even with genuine DK’s now being removed from the polling results – I did say it would get detailed!
Chris Curtis from Opinion Research (pollsters) is of the same opinion as me, here’s his Tweet from the 7/3/21 when some people were ‘up in arms’ when Savanta Comres released a snap ‘unweighted’ Scexit poll recently: “I wouldn’t bother weighting a Scottish independence poll by turnout anyway. We have to assume almost everyone is going to vote (like last time) and there is no way of telling who won’t at this stage regardless” .https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1368555673848586245?s=20
As well as turnout weighting, weighting is applied to party voting intention, previous referendum voting, age profiling, sex (not gender) and location, so it’s always worth looking at the initial raw data to get a feel for how much weighting has been done. Pollsters will of course defend their weighting, but to me, the more complex it gets the more MOE must increase. There is one other key aspect that has, again in my opinion, altered the LeaveUK/RemainUK polling results in favour of LeaveUK examined below..
Young voters/Age Weighting. 16 and 17 year olds are now included in nearly all Scexit polling, their propensity to vote is low. In 2014 110K registered, 75% of them say they voted. They represent 2.5% of those who can vote and at that does not appear to be fully covered by any weighting. “Daily Express, Scotland and the Union Poll – 8 March 2021 Savanta ComRes interviewed 1,004 Scottish adults aged 16+ online from 26 February to 4 March 2021. Data were weighted to be representative of Scottish adults by age, gender, region, 2019 General Election recall and 2014 Independence Referendum recall. Savanta ComRes is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. Full tables at www.comresglobal.com.” In this poll of 1004 people, weighted down (for all factors) to 825 who were actually asked the question, the LeaveUK results (outcome 43%) were as follows: 16-34 yr olds 60%, 35-54’s 47 and 55+’s 29%. The ‘complexity’ comes in when you look at two things, firstly that the first age group are much less likely to vote by a considerable margin and secondly even after weighting, the reduced sample size of 825 is not representative of the respective age groups as a percentage of our population, namely, 16-34 27.4%, 35-54 32.4% and 55+ 40%, you do the math.
For those that bothered to read past paragraph six, I hope the detail that followed has enlightened you a little. I would encourage you to look into the data tables yourselves when published. In the meantime, you can follow my charting of Scexit poll trends by following my pinned tweet on Twitter @SteveSayersOne where you will see my latest trend charts and occasionaly some light analysis. #SNPOut
Ooops! Nearly forgot about that single pollster abstraction, here it is:
Last week the Scots nationalists preoccupation with “flegs” waved its weary head above the parapets again, this time in Inverness.
The stooshie revolved around a new shop in Inverness (I won’t name it here, as its probably still licking it’s wounds and bemused after discovering this small but vocal prickly side of a minority of its local customers). The shop had the temerity of attaching priced sales tags emblazoned with the Union Jack (that flag that includes the Saltire) and the words ‘British Tweed” to some Harris Tweed products – probably made overseas, which is where much of the Harris Tweed post weaving product manufacturing takes place.
You could be forgiven for thinking this true yet innocuous event wasn’t of any consequence, sadly not.
Some very vocal small minded anti British Scottish nationalists spotted the – in their eyes – offending tags. Social media mayhem ensued along with about six Scottish mainstream (if you count The National as mainstream) news outlets annoyingly stirring up the stooshie. They claimed The Harris Tweed Authority (HTA) had rapidly intervened and “instructed”* the villainous shop to remove the offending price tags. (Times, Sun, Mirror, Mail, Herald and National).
HTA is the body tasked with protecting the unique qualities and brand of Harris tweed worldwide. Not only does it have a board and a CEO in Stornaway buy it has it’s own British Act Of Parliament to help it –
“The passing of an Act of Parliament in 1993 brought into being the Harris Tweed Authority, a new statutory body replacing the original Harris Tweed Association set up in 1909. The fundamental role of the organisation was to undertake responsibility for promoting and maintaining the authenticity, standard and reputation of the world famous HARRIS TWEED cloth.
The Authority oversees the production and inspection of the cloth from start to finish and only when satisfied that the article is genuinely deserving of our historic Orb will we brand the cloth with the mark.
The mark of the Orb, pressed onto every length of cloth and seen on the traditional label affixed to finished items, guarantees the highest quality tweed, dyed, spun and handwoven by islanders of the Outer Hebrides of Scotland in their homes to the laws outlined in the Harris Tweed Act of Parliament.”
The definition of HARRIS TWEED contained in the Harris Tweed Act of 1993 clearly defines HARRIS TWEED as follows:
“Handwoven by the islanders at their homes in the Outer Hebrides, finished in the Outer Hebrides, and made from pure virgin wool dyed and spun in the Outer Hebrides.”
“The Act ensures that all cloth certified with the HARRIS TWEED Orb symbol complies with this definition and is genuine HARRIS TWEED, the world’s only commercially produced handwoven tweed.
The legislation and organisation allows the safeguarding of the HARRIS TWEED name, quality and reputation of HARRIS TWEED ensuring that every metre of the world famous cloth conforms to the same exacting standards and gives legal powers to address imitation and counterfeiting of the cloth worldwide.”
You will have noticed that this amazing British protection for a Highlands and Islands product is unique, the only product protected this way for over 100 years, however, anyone in the world can buy Harris Tweed, and make it into products. It is only these products that can use the HTA proprietary branding with its wording and logo. In fact the HTA has just recently won a court-case and damages for an Edinburgh outlet incorrectly using Harris Tweed branding on its facade.
Factually Harris Tweed is a British product protected by a British Act of Parliament enforced by the HTA, which sees the people and community it protects and serves as benefiting immensely from its British protection. The tweed is undeniably Scottish, but equally undeniably it is British. The shop did nothing wrong at all.
Contrary to the storm “in a British tea cup” the media attempted to stir up, the HTA did NOT instruct or request the sales tags to be removed, they simply tweeted a four part twitter thread outlining their remit in an attempt to take the heat out the situation. It didn’t work, the stooshie continued to cause embarrassment. The final part of the thread was very clear that NO action by HTA had been taken;
“The union jack & any other labelling on a product made using HT fabric is branding ADDED by an independent retailer or manufacturer who has bought HT & manufactured it into finished goods. The union jack labels/tags were NOT produced by us, or by any of the HT mills. (4/4)”
This did not suit the mob of howling social media nationalists, who kept on insisting they had somehow won the battle and that the HTA had delivered their killer blow for them.
I’m fairly active on twitter and I like things to be reasonably fact based and this fleg nonsense irked me (I have a blog on another Flag stooshie but that’s a different fight), so I asked the HTA directly about their involvement;
Me “As reported in the press, did you instruct/ask the retailer to remove the British sales tags”?
HTA “Thank you Steve for contacting us. You’re absolutely correct. The HTA has not instructed the removal of the ‘British Tweed’ sales tags”.
Pretty damned clear to me.
The actual skirmish and vocal stooshie was between a wee shop in Inverness (being intimidated to remove sales tags) and some petty and intimidatory vocal Scottish nationalists.
There’s probably only one response to this nonsense, which is to say to these shoulder chipped and blinkered flag obsessed nationalists, get a life, stop interfering with a brilliant Scottish brand and causing potential harm to Scottish jobs.
Or do these same woad wearing Saltire wavers want Britain to stop protecting and promoting this iconic Scottish product which contributes khjgkjh to Scottish GDP and protects the jobs and community lifestyle of the Highlands and Islands? – Japan is one of Harris Tweeds biggest markets and Britain helps it as much as it can with embassy promotion;
July 2018 – “Two iconic Isle of Harris brands are to showcase their wares on a trip to Japan this week.
Delegates will be offered the Isle of Harris Gin as a welcome drink before being given the opportunity to view Harris Tweed garments and accessories which will include a quirky ‘Hello Kitty’, the fictional character created by Japanese illustrator Yuko Shimizu, clad in the textile.
The purpose of the visit is to build relations with the community of investors, trade partners, Scottish companies and intermediaries in Japan; while showcasing the best of Scotland on a global stage”.
PS No donations required.
* Note the Herald article author objected to me saying they had said “Instructed” I think their intent in the article is clear, pandering to the nationalist flag brigade.
Headline “Union Jacks removed from Harris Tweed clothes as overseers hit back at lack of action criticism”
(Updated May 31 2018 following rejection of ScotGov complaints from IPSO).
There was a wee stramash about flags this month (January 2018) in case it passed you by. It’s a bit complex, stick with it.
#FlagGate synopsis;
Official instances of the Union Jack flying on Scottish Government buildings has reduced from 15 in 2017 to 1 in 2018.
Conflation – Alex Salmond claimed he had made the “change” in 2010 – he was in fact referring to the Lion Rampant being used as an alternative.
Lie? – Nicola Sturgeon denied there had been any changes to flag policy since 2010
ScotGov appealed to IPSO about two articles highlighting the shift in policy – the first time a Government has complained.
May 18 both complaints rejected.
Detail;
There is a “flag protocol” for Scottish Government buildings. It’s a document produced by the Scottish Government and has the heading “Days For Hoisting Flags On Buildings Of The Scottish Government” and the latest version below, effective January 2018, is version number 23.
This “Protocol” has been in place for well over 8 years and probably originated when the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive, sorry, Scottish Government, first came into existence. For the purposes of FlagGate we need to look at January 2017 version 22 (below) versus January 2018 version 23 (above).
The flag protocol document is a regularly reviewed Scottish Government document. It even has its own little department looking after it, the aptly named “Protocol & Honours Team.” Between versions 14 through 22 there were hardly any variances. Between versions 22 and 23 there is a marked difference between the two versions
The crux of the matter is the number of instances of the Union Jack being flown has substantially reduced, almost eradicated, between the two versions, down from 15 to 1!
This was, via the media, initially attributed to the wishes/instructions of the FM Nicola Sturgeon, who then proceeded to have a massive hissy fit and tweeted umpteen times in the course of two days (even at 11pm at night)! Also tweeting a thread of EIGHT sequential tweets, just about flags (astonishing)! Things got a wee bit agitated to say the least.
Note the conflating switch from media claims of Union Jack to Lion Rampant (and note it’s not given its formal name, The Royal Standard).
From the two versions of the protocol shown above it’s evident the number of times the Union Jack is to fly officially has reduced from 15 to 1.
This is where FlagGate starts to get quite complex, the media claimed Nicola had made the changes which she immediately refuted. To resolve the “claims” and to add conflation and confusion to the matter, it was Alex Salmond to the rescue! With his typical bluster he released press statements saying it was he who altered the 2010 version to the the Lion Rampant (The Royal Standard), so it could be flown instead of the Union Jack on St Andrew’s Day – he had discussed this with Her Majesty, assuring her that the Scots loved the Lion Rampant. Paraphrasing Salmond – “So whats the fuss? All above board, the Queen was happy, it was me what did it.” The Queen of course is unlikely to get involved with this tawdry wrangle. Nowhere does he mention the “reduction” in instances of the Union Jack.
This sent the media into a tizz as they thought “Crap! HM involved, Salmond on the warpath and looks like Nicola didnae dae it.” So they apologised, in a fashion, roughly saying “we accept the policy did not change under Nicola Surgeon and that it was changed by Alex Salmond in 2010.”
But there is a problem with this “outcome” – as Salmond’s meeting with the Queen was in 2009, what was changed was presumably the Union Jack for the Lion Rampant (Royal Banner), it’s obvious there has been significant change to the protocols WELL AFTER Salmond made his minor change for the 2010 version.
With typical evasive words our FM, aided by her predecessor, has managed to conflate and confuse the issue pushing the MSM to stand down and let the issue dissipate.
The thing that may have got our journo’s slightly confused is the detail in all of this, the two readily available versions when this blog was originally published showed massive variations (I posted v14 & v23 in active threads on twitter a number of times), all versions need a very close inspection. As well as the basic difference re the number of flying times, each version has a visual ‘Key” and the key to FlagGate are the “keys.”
In v22 the UJ & Saltire combination is key “A”, if there is one flagpole only, the UJ takes precedence. In version 23, the UJ Saltire combination is key “C” – St Andrew’s Day remained as “B” in both versions. Another little wrinkle is that the Lion Rampant has to be flown by Royal assent (presumably given after AS met HM), however technically even the LR need not be flown, leaving only the special Armed Forces Day flag as the sole British flag in the whole year. The new key on version 23 is very unclear about what happens on St Andrews’s Day if there is only one flagpole. There is a heap of smoke and a bunch of mirrors in play here.
Fact – the reduction in UJ’s flying from 15 to 1 is down to the Scottish Government changing protocol from 2017 to 2018, this is on Nicola’s watch nothing to do with Salmond.
The SNP led Scottish Government attempts to eradicate Britishness at every opportunity, we can now plainly see that. It needs to be explicitly clear who instigates these significant changes.
After receiving version 22 via FOI I’ve emailed the department of Protocol & Honours for additional clarification. I await a further response and answers to some additional questions.
#FlagGate might be gone, but it’s certainly not forgotten, I intend to get to the bottom of the decision making behind the changes.
———————
Update 31/5/18 – Formal response below that has prompted additional questions, more when I get them!
Two complaints by ScotGov against press articles in the Daily Express & the Daily Telegraph have been rejected by IPSO – independent regulator for the UK newspaper and magazine industry.
I am continuing a fact finding process via FOI, unlikely to be resolved prior to June 18.
Note there is no apparent ministerial sign off, who instigates changes is yet to be established.
It seems I’ve caught the attention of the New Sunday Herald’s senior investigative reporter.
The pictures below says it all really.
Update 21/8/17 – Over a week now and The Herald refuses to respond to this post on their article or tweets sent to the paper, editor and the journalist. In fact the editor Niel Mackay has even blocked me on twitter, pathetic.
I think he must have known the reaction he would get from me re this Sunday’s abysmal piece on North Sea Oil taken almost verbatim from Business For Scotland, an evident propaganda arm of the Yes movement.
As I’m “officially” back on Twitter and active again as @SteveSayersOne (July 17), the Twitter @ list of “CyberSadNats” below, many of whom managed to get my old @SteveSayers1 account suspended, may be of interest.
I was not suspended for abuse or homophobia as @RobbyCameron has claimed (check @CheckThisAllOut to learn all about “Mark”). Note there was no “aggressive following” “cross posting”or “evading” but I was “lightly” guilty of the first transgression, but not in a disruptive fashion. Two of my (at the time) six accounts were in fact business accounts, the other 4 were not in breach to my knowledge (multiple accounts have always been allowed) and one of the four was a backup account due to the many temporary suspensions I was given (thankfully twitter are a bit better at ascertaining rule breaking these days).
Background;
My original Twitter account (@SteveSayers1) had a policy of never blocking people, wasn’t easy, but I thought it better to enter dialogue/debate to see what was being said by those I disagreed with, either to persuade them of my point of view or to refute lies spin and misdirection. (Wings block list certainly doesn’t help the free and open debate concept, it now stands at over 6,300)!
Over time my reasons for not blocking gained another facet, the more their angry and abusive arguments failed, the more they deflected and tried to make things personal, the more convinced I became they harmed their own cause, so it became a point of principle. If people saw their awful behaviour then my cause, Scotland remaining as the UK, benefited. My new account continues the policy of not blocking, I also dont mute individuals on @SteveSayersOne but will occassionaly mute a tedious conversation – thanks for that addition Twitter!
An extremely nasty side to twitter is when you are vocal and can back up your assertions via facts, research and logical argument (like some of those in my wider blog), you are often the victim of some very extreme personal abuse in an attempt to shut you up. It seems the open nature of twitter, where you can search for subjects that interest you and join in the conversations, results in the less well informed blinkered Scottish nationalists switching, from failed logic and misinformation (often @WingsScotland or Business for Scotland sourced), to horrendous personal abuse because you have the temerity to disagree.
Scottish politics (the active little Twitter corner that I inhabit/inhabited), was/is rife with these trolls (CyberSadNats), lying, spinning, abusing, harassing and so forth, in order to intimidate and shut down debate. It’s quite hard to keep track of who was genuine, whether outwardly anonymous or not, with a lot of Nats having multiple accounts to aid mass reporting and general abuse.
After Twitter introduced ‘mute” I did on occasion, in extremis, mute certain individuals for a day or two – it went against the grain, but was useful in preserving temper and sanity. My most muted account being the “delightful” @ScotsNat (after his account was suspended he now tweets as @DrScotRef – check his timeline back a few months, that’s if he hasn’t deleted it for the third or fourth time of course. (Update Feb19, he seems to have seen the light a little and tweeting as @RumpleFinkin has even called out, quite forcibly, some of the CyberSadNats, lets hope its a permanent conversion)
I never did get to the bottom of his obsession with me, as he lied, changed accounts, deleted whole swathes of tweets and set up accounts like @Pappalazzaroo just to be vindictive (that account still open, but reclaimed after deletion I think). He was extremely odd, kept dreadful company, like serial abusive, harassing, stalking troll Bill Brady (35 identities at least so far, see list), Mark Burnett @Widster Mark Robertson @RobbyCameron1 and others, he was was an all round sad excuse for a democratic citizen.
@ScotsNat kept blocking and unblocking me, repeatedly haunting my timeline and the timelines of those I interacted with, with no logical reason and for some sad purpose known only to him. It was too aggressive and personal to purely be political. I’m going to be gracious and say its because he was just incredibly stupid, although attacking my family (and the families of others) means with that level of stupidity and venom, he and I will never ever see eye to eye. Within hours of my new account he created a stupid parody @SteveSayers0ne. After having been forced to delete tweets he then morphed into the sick @YoonAway. (He was not the only one to create a new smearing account).
Due to ScotsNat’s “perseverance” at being a troll he did, along with @TheBillBrady (multiple suspensions see list for accounts) he did take top billing in a list of cybersadnats, those supposedly Yes supporting Twitter accounts – who’s personal interactions are pure venom, inflicting ad hominem, lies and aggressive insults at the drop of a hat, you will recognise quite a few. Bill’s abusive account tally stands at approximately 30! AS @RumpleFinkin ScotsNat does seem to have come to terms with his previous behavior and has to his credit called out, in quite forcible terms, many of these CyberSadNats recently, particularly Bill Brady, kudos for that.
The regular type of cybersadnat trolling and abuse takes the following form (not all accounts are guilty of all transgressions, some are just generally extremely abusive);
Publicising private and personal data (doxxing) such as;
Name, date of birth, address, family details, business dealings, pictures of family, pictures of property, phone numbers and email addresses.
Lies;
Accusations of child abuse. Accusations of owning accounts that are nothing to do with me just on a whim (think I have been nearly every prominent union supporting twitter user)! Accusations of criminal familial connections, accusations of racism, homophobia and of them having sexual relations with my family,
Threats;
Physical violence, threats of trolling abuse on children, threats to property, threats to continue abuse and publication of private details for the next twenty years, threats to family with multiple emails sent to many employers (they don’t actually know where my son works) in an attempt to damage career, telephone calls from smokescreen numbers to threaten & harass, contacting schools to accuse parents of being unfit, in fact nothing is out of bounds for them
My advice is not to block or mute until such time as you experience them for yourselves, the aim of the lists is to act as a friendly warning so you can be on your guard, I hope to see you on twitter in due course. I’m operating @SteveSayersOne in a different fashion for a while, if you don’t follow me there, please do, it’s appreciated.
Check back occasionally for a list update. This blog post updated 19/2/19.
Steve.
Cybernats all, shame of the Yes movement.
James McGoldrick @McGoldrickJa @SayYesToIndy @BenMcFadden10 @BenMcFadden11 @EKForIndy @JohnCoy29071630
Mark Burnett @Widster @Sporan1314 @KennyLogan15 @ScotlandRab @JCWallace12 @RonCorrie
Mark “Claire” Robertson @Robbycameron1 Mark “Claire” Robertson @robbycameronsc1 Mark “Claire” Robertson @clairerobsc1 Mark “Claire” Robertson @Clairerob1 Mark “Claire” Robertson @clairerob91 Mark “Claire” Robertson @stevencloud11 Mark “Claire” Robertson @stevencloud12 Mark “Claire” Robertson @ashortbread Mark “Claire” Robertson @SNPOot Mark “Claire” Robertson @ihatesayers Mark “Claire” Robertson @stevekinross Mark “Claire” Robertson @stevesayerss1 Mark “Claire” Robertson @steveesayers1 Mark “Claire” Robertson @Brian_Spanner Mark “Claire” Robertson @JennyLovesTits Mark “Claire” Robertson @JakeyTrollin Mark “Claire” Robertson @SteveSayersO Mark “Claire” Robertson @BeanzMeanzLies Mark “Claire” Robertson
Bill Brady @Sailor_anon Bill Brady @TheBillBrady Bill Brady @Anon_Sailor Bill Brady @votescotlab Bill Brady @tehvlb Bill Brady @Mrdavidtorrance Bill Brady @Bill_Brady007 Bill Brady @SuspendedBill Bill Brady @fat_shady666 Bill Brady @Watchingtrolls Bill Brady @sirbillbrady Bill Brady @BrianGalloway0 Bill Brady @KnowsBill Bill Brady @Bill_Bow7 Bill Brady @SteveBr44949075 Bill Brady @republican_scot Bill Brady @lovelydevlin Bill Brady (I might have this one wrong). @chiefbully Bill Brady @welldonedonna Bill Brady @TrumpIsMad Bill Brady @TheBillBrady Bill Brady @BillTheFinder Bill Brady @BillTheFinder2 Bill Brady @engineroom666 Bill Brady @fundayherald Bill Brady @williambrady666 Bill Brady @murdofraser3 Bill Brady @andrewmfraser Bill Brady @snp_fail Bill Brady @macporridgeoats Bill Brady @geirrendour Bill Brady @andrewfrazer11 Bill Brady @loyalistsyes Bill Brady @leakstwitt Bill Brady @RepublicFife Bill Brady
Paul Wright @PaulaHoneyRose @Paula_Again @polamilros @LukeLuciously @AllSkipsAbout @PaulaMilRose @FalseYesNews
@BrechinDiocese
Jason Michael McCann jeggit @butterfly_reb @u1789 @crimesofbrits @crimesofbritain (possibly involved)? @rpjblog @geofedward @leopoldonion @lydiabrit @joggerluscious (joint) @FatzDomingo
Others – may belong to some of the above
There are tons of them, many not listed here are incorporated into my twitter account live list “CyberSadNats” those that block me disapear off the curated list.
@JohnToms became @RadioGuyGlasgow & @ComediansForYes & others @YESThatcherDead @Nobbyswizzle @sonofnobby @NorbertSwizzle @camyx3raygun @Politicsblog2 @SteveSayers5 @BigPoppaTotoro @EllenCoylexohot @skynednews @bristolbogboy @richisacunt @Vengance_Ven @stevespinkhag used a bio pic (private) of my wife. @KhmeerYoo @Timer_egg @Egg_timer1 @Fan_Sayers @HammerOfScots @Nawbag_Sayers @dietbet @nawbag_sayers @ihatesayers @hearallabtit @yoontracker1 @yoontracker2 @teacheradamsayers (trolling my son and interfering with his teaching career). @169saysyes @benmcfadden10
How politically and economically informed are ordinary Scots?
I have been an ardent supporter of Scotland remaining as the United Kingdom for as long as I can remember. I used to watch the young Alex Salmond run rings round the opposition at the time and marked him out as bright and persuasive, on top of his subject, I admired him to some extent, certainly his cunning.
Since 2012 my opinion of him, his party and the information they provide us with, has taken a significant turn for the worse. I’m not sure whether he was always a charlatan, building up a solid reputation to allow him to lie and spin when the time was right, or, if his cause and anti UK hatred have damaged his mental faculties.
That’s as may be, I can no longer abide the man and his version of politics and persuasion. The publication of the White Paper, 690 pages of puerile propaganda, stunned me with its effrontery. That he and the SNP thought it would pass muster with intelligent voters seemed incredulous. Time and experience has robbed me of what, in retrospect, was naïveté.
I have, until recently, been extremely active on “Scottish” twitter with @SteveSayers1 (suspended now) mainly involved in opposing the first Scottish referendum, the SNP generally and some policies specifically, trying to educate an uninformed cohort of died in the wool nationalists.
At times I despaired at the lack of comprehension and the constant stream of “new” accounts demonstrating the same (apparent) lack of knowledge. I spent hours trying to reason and explain what to me were simple matters, only to be met with ridicule, abuse and outright disbelief that 2+2=4.
The main issues then were oil, economics, currency, EU, NATO, UN and capital flight.
Developments since we voted No? Total collapse of UK oil revenues, two years of massive current and forecasted deficits, currency options ridiculed, a Tory government and Brexit, seems a lot. In my view everything that has changed further mitigates against Scotland contemplating major constitutional change or independence.
But that’s logical thought, it doesn’t allow for the sheer “Indy at any cost” emotions perpetrated and cultivated by the SNP and die hard separatists. So it looks today like we have to endure the whole sorry divisive process once again, oh joy.
But it won’t be exactly the same, this time we start from a 60/40 No, rather than 72/28 last time, not that I give any credence to the opinion this will make it easier for separatists. The Union vote is now solid and entrenched, plus, Brexit has not moved it, also, about 30% of SNP voters voted leave, that’s a problem for Yes, these guys don’t want to be part of any union. I believe they will abstain or go with the devil they know rather than a jump in the dark to a new, less preferential, EU membership via an article 49 application. No UK opt outs and the Euro lie in that direction.
I’m hoping (but I won’t hold my breath) that if there is a second referendum the new reality of a Scotland outside the UK, while the UK is no longer in the EU, gives voters real pause for thought. That the economic reality of two years of crippling deficit (with more to come), the revised (still low) cost of setup (£10b) and understanding that we would inherit debt of approximately £150b will sink in, that GERS is a Scottish Government produced and approved assessment of our starting position of Indy, along with weakening EU, will resonate.
What is likely to happen is that there will an even more divisive campaign with lies and a real lack of quality information. The SNP have tried to remove the oil and currency out of the field and Europe too, although they have failed spectacularly on that, the EU today, for the third or fourth time, confirming it’s an Article 49 new application process.
What is certain is that there will be another combative “war” of information, I hope that the separatists case is as poor as last time, but the real issue is will people pay attention to it? Or, like last time, will real referenced data and information be ignored, misconstrued and ridiculed out of bigotry?
If we have another referendum I intend to oppose the separatists just as strongly as I did last time, and pushing real information will be the key. I think it will be down to individual parties small groups and individuals, I wasn’t a fan of the BT campaign last time, too timid, the Yes faithful took every opportunity to make it a Tory campaign operated by Scottish labour, leading to separatists employing their favourite tactic, playing the man not the ball.
All the above text is background, musings to set the scene for the real issue. How informed will the ordinary voter be? How informed are they now?
I followed with interest a small twitter poll True or False? passed to me by @AgentP22 (cheers) that asked simple questions about what people really knew about important content in the white paper. This content has been the subject of countless debates and fractious arguments with Yes voters. I had plenty of them, often being called a liar and resulting in personal attacks as the information was just (despite its reality and truth) not acceptable to Yes voters. The refutation was pathological at times, you could almost feel the hate generated by the cognitive dissonance the information caused.
The question was this;
“ScotGov’s 2013 “White Paper” stated Scotland was in deficit and iScot would inherit a £100B share of UK debt”
The poll then asked;
True, False, Don’t know, Didn’t read it.
Bear in mind this was “The Plan”, the basis of how an Indy Scotland would make its way in the world. The result, over 600 people voted, was very interesting.
True 42% False 32% Don’t know 8% Didn’t read it 18%
I find this stunning. I can accept the don’t knows, they may have skimmed it and really can’t recall. I can accept the didn’t read it’s, although I find 18% high, it’s likely they had a pre informed opinion, were not interested in the information available, their vote would not have changed regardless.
It’s the false at 32% that I find incredulous. These people are lying, lying about the content or lying about having read it.
There is a very large contingent of nationalist tweeters, bloggers and FaceBook posters who constantly insist Scotland has no debt, that the debt has been generated by and belongs to the UK. The deficit highlighted by GERS also belongs to the UK, has nothing to do with Scotland and is a UK conspiracy to defraud Scotland of its rightful independence.
You might think that these “deniers” are just small time crackpots, but no, some of them are classed by themselves and their followers as bigwigs and leading lights in the Indy camp, the likes of Malky, Wings, Berthan Pete etc.
It is these people and their acolytes who voted false in the poll, denying reality out of pure adherence to the cult mantra of Indy at any cost.
The answer to the question of how informed is the ordinary voter? Many are very badly informed or themselves guilty of disseminating false information “false news” if you will.
My job (and yours if you see reality) in Indyref2 (if it happens) is to ensure these information charlatans are totally exposed. It’s up to us as the likes of Salmond and Sturgeon are hell bent on destroying the UK to secure their place in history. They encourage these purveyors of false information by saying nothing.
I can’t wait for White Paper two.
DIVORCING THE EQUAL PARTNER? (With a nod to Margaret).
If at times the UK seems excessively “English” to some Scots, it’s simply due to England’s greater population. From time to time some Scots (being from an historic nation with a proud past), will inevitably resent some expressions of this immutable fact. Is it equitable that 8.3% of the UK’s population (Scotland) has any stronger voice than any other 8.3% of the UK’s population? Of course not, the Scots voice is heard, more loudly than say a Cumbrian or Northumbrian voice, neither of whom have the twin representation of Westminster and a devolved parliament.
PARTNERS
UK citizens (from all corners of the UK) are “Equal” partners, not by way of an unequal “25% share” of political power dictated by “constituent countries”, but by the very heartbeat of our democracy blessed with free speech, one person, one vote. Political parties wax and wane and come and go over time, with governments renewing every five years. It is only 23 years since Scotland returned more Tory MP’s the SNP ones, that trend could reverse in the be real 23 years. Our UK is an historic representative democracy, the mother of all parliaments. It is through this amazing partnership of citizens and constituent countries that people in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland (and some significant parts of northern England), benefit from extensive pooling and sharing of resources, enabling the nationwide provision of essential and modern welfare and services from Land’s end to John O’Groat’s, ensuring those in remote and rural areas can enjoy the benefits of an advanced society.
There are nationalist tendencies and separatist movements in all constituent countries, we should be forever mindful that these people are naturally blind to the greater good and the notion of shared citizenship. Not all Scots are nationalists, not all English people espouse nationalism and are grudging of UK wide support – we need to ensure nationalists notion of “independence” does not harm that greater good facilitated by the UK.
As a nation (though not a state), Scotland has an undoubted right to national self-determination. So far, it has exercised that right twice. Firstly joining and remaining in the Union for over 300 years, then secondly In 2014., under a democratic one person one vote (massive turnout) referendum, Scotland chose to stay as the UK.
Should Scots in future (as a properly mandated majority) determine on independence, no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much the rest of the UK might be saddened by and regret their departure.
What the Scots cannot do however, is to insist upon their own terms for remaining in the Union, regardless of the views of others. Nor could they alone determine the inevitably debilitating terms of a future divorce or avoid any share of national responsibility.
BREXIT
The advent of Brexit has focused the UK once again on constitutional matters, with some Scots erroneously classing the voting pattern in Scotland as a Scottish vote. It wasn’t, it was a UK wide vote, as democratic, as important and as binding as the Scottish independence referendum. It is worth remembering that the Remain vote in Scotland had a low comparative turnout to the rest of the UK, over one million Scots voted leave and turnout was well down on the rest of the UK.
No matter your personal views on Brexit, it is clear that it will happen, and with that clarity, it is highly likely Scotland separated from a non EU UK, would face an even tougher (and unnecessary) future outside.
EU
It is clear Scotland would have to apply to join the EU under current accession rules, The Acquis, adopt the “Stability & Growth Pact”, the “Excessive Deficit Procedure” plus move, at some stage, towards the Euro. It will also need to abide by the “Schengen Agreement” while leaving its largest market (UK) using the Brexit outcome trade resolution, without the benefit of current UK EU opt outs.
Considering Scottish deficits of recent years (9% of GDP) and the failure of oil prices to get anywhere near the unrealistic SNP forecasted $113, would iScot expect to pay in or take support (Barnett style) from the EU? At what level? If it expects to pay in or be neutral, how? What significant tax & spend choices would it make to balance the books. Note accession criteria required deficit levels at 3% of GDP and Borrowing (debt) at less than 60% GDP – current Scottish levels are 9% and 100% respectively.
Contemplate the reductions in spending and increases in taxation to close those considerable gaps.
The EU situation is of course, without considering the considerable post separation issues of set up costs (£10 Billion conservatively), debt share (Yes, we would be responsible for 8.3% of UK debt) future debt interest charges, possible UK capital flight plus any UK trade reductions due to Brexit outcomes with the EU.
To consider leaving the UK when it has yet to resolve it’s Brexit negotiations seems folly, incredibly risky with totally uncertain outcomes, will the EU member states vote unanimously to admit Scotland? There is no safety net and no turning back if we separate.
VAT
Are we ready for significant changes to a myriad of small but important aspects of daily life by choosing (if they want us) the EU over the UK? Take VAT, the list below is our current zero rated items under UK EU special conditions;
Social housing; printed books (excluding e-books); journals and other printed materials; renovations to private housing; collections of domestic refuse; household water supplies; basic foodstuffs (excluding highly processed or pre-cooked food); some take away food; cut flowers and plants for food production; prescribed pharmaceutical products; certain medical supplies; domestic passenger transport; children’s clothing and footwear; live animals destined for human consumption; seed supplies; construction of residential buildings; some supplies for the construction of new buildings; sewerage services; motor cycle and bicycle helmets; intra-community and international passenger transport; some gold ingots, bars and coins.
Here is what a new EU entrant gets;
Intra-community and international transport (excluding road transport). In other words, nothing escapes VAT and only two “items” can be between 5% & 15%, which is the minimum.
“Zero rate derogation Some goods and services are “zero-rated”. The zero rate is treated like a positive rate of tax calculated at 0%. Supplies subject to the zero rate are still “taxable supplies”, that is, they count as having VAT charged on them. In the UK, examples include most food, books, medications, and certain kinds of transport. The zero rate is not featured in the EU Sixth Directive as it was intended that the minimum VAT rate throughout Europe would be 5%. However, zero-rating remains in some member states, most notably the UK and Ireland, as a legacy of pre-EU legislation. These member states have been granted a derogation to continue existing zero-rating but cannot add new goods or services. An EU Member State may uplift their domestic zero rate to a higher rate, for example to 5% or 20%, however, EU VAT rules do not allow a reversal back to the Zero rate once it has been given up. Interestingly, Member States may institute a reduced rate on a previously zero rated item even where EU law does not provide for a reduced rate, however if a Member State makes an increase from a zero rate to the prevalent standard rate, they may not then decrease down to a reduced rate unless specifically provided for in EU VAT Law (Annexe III of EU Dir 2006/112 list sets out where a reduced rate is permissible).”
INDYREFX? NO THANKSX
There is no doubt Scotland could “go it alone”, survive, with or without the UK or the EU. Given decades it might even prosper – but at what intervening cost and misery, with what certainty other than hope? The real question is why should it? Because we voted differently to our fellow citizens? Don’t family members vote differently from time to time? How would it manage and develop in the next 40 years, grow its economy and protect its people given its current setup and western macro economics? – the cost in human terms would be substantial, our youth’s opportunities curtailed and their futures cast into doubt. I worry that many nationalists are in love with the idea of false freedom, a false dream that blinds them to the magnitude of problems and complexities that separation would incur.
Some Scots opine about the perceived democratic deficit, their point is confusing, obtuse even, not only did we elect 59 MP’s to Westminster but we have our own devolved parliament with it’s enhanced powers and MSP’s. Some Scots say Scotland’s voice is not heard, they are incorrect, they need to ensure that what they say is relevant for the UK, not just a small section of it. Giving up the UK family and swapping 59 MP’s in the UK for just 6 MEP’s in the EU seems a very retrograde step, inflicting the worst possible democratic defect on ourselves.
Polling since the Scottish independence referendum has seen no significant uplift in sentiment for separation, the SNP, who insisted the independence referendum was a one off opportunity, have indicated a required level of 60% support in the polls for a twelve month period. This hasn’t happened, seems highly unlikely to happen – especially considering the SNP lost its majority in HR16.
Long may the successful partnership of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland prosper.
Ps. This post was inspired by this quotation;
Thatcher on Scottish independence.
“If [the Tory Party] sometimes seems English to some Scots that is because the Union is inevitably dominated by England by reason of its greater population. The Scots, being an historic nation with a proud past, will inevitably resent some expressions of this fact from time to time. As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure. What the Scots (not indeed the English) cannot do, however, is to insist upon their own terms for remaining in the Union, regardless of the views of the others.”
In the immediate aftermath of the EU Referendum the SNP reopened the issue of Scottish independence, arguing that since Scotland voted to remain, it should become independent and continue its membership of the EU. It’s since become clear that automatic continuation would not be permitted, so Scotland would have to apply from scratch. However, any application would expose a fundamental problem – that its economy and public finances are in no fit state to join.
All new applicant countries must accept the 35 chapters of the EU acquis, including a commitment to join the Euro at some point, and adherence to the Growth and Stability Pact. That imposes two fiscal rules – that government deficits are kept below three percent of GDP, and government debt below 60 percent. Scotland fails both tests. Its deficit last year was 9.4 percent of GDP, over three times the limit, and substantially higher than any existing EU member including Greece. Its debt was around 90 percent, less excessive but still be way too high.
True, other countries have been admitted to EU membership and the Euro despite being in breach of the Pact. Cyprus and Malta were in breach of both rules when they joined, and before that Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece all joined the Euro while in breach. However, subsequent events have highlighted the risk of such concessions, both to the applicant country and to existing members. On top of that, Scotland’s fiscal record since devolution has been abysmal, with deficits every single year – even when the oil price was at record highs.
The reality is that Scotland is living well beyond its means and its finances have only been propped up by its continuing subsidy under the Barnett Formula. To have any chance of EU membership an independent Scotland would first need to balance the books. And whereas a rebound in oil prices might once have helped, the North Sea is now heavily depleted with production down by two-thirds since its peak. Onshore tax increases are a possibility, but the required scale would be deeply damaging to the economy (eg a doubling in VAT or the standard rate of income tax). More realistically, Scotland could and should cut its high level of public spending, which continues to run 20 percent above English levels.
Of course, the situation would be transformed if Scotland’s economy could be strengthened, and the SNP have appointed a Growth Commission to come up with proposals. It should start by recognising that the burden of public spending needs to be reduced, and that needs to happen whether or not Scotland seeks independence and EU membership.
For more detail see Scotland’s Overspending Problem, TaxPayers Alliance, October 2016
In order to get the message out as widely as possible, its important that any of mine or my guests posts that you like, are publicised to the fullest extent.
You can help by sharing links to this Blog, or any of its posts, by copying a link and pasting into a tweet or Facebook post, or by sharing s link via DM or Messenger.
If you are a member of any closed FaceBook groups sharing in there helps as well.
You will see below this post links on how to share and shorten links (saves characters on twitter) and below those links embedded sharing buttons – these are available throughout the blog.
Steve Sayers Blog 